Go to page

Level 6

A demand for free solutions which protects computers is high, so we couldn’t skip this type of security tools. Most of the tested solutions achieved a slightly different result which to some extent reflects the fact that developers share information about threats. However, there is no doubt that the Check Point SandBlast Agent for Browser extension has gained the leading position (remember that its free version protects only against phishing).

Attachments

Level 15

Tests are Ok..but i find 1 problem( Not with test)
I never understand why AVIRA doesn't include that zero hour blocking in their AV versions(Free and Pro)..
It is their extension that does the trick..it always does admirably

The data in this study proves that merely blocking web-content based upon lists provides very little to overall security. It's a fact that is well accepted except by browser-extension crazed security forum members.

509322

You could add every list you could get your hands on and it probably wouldn't make one bit of difference; uBO would end up the worst performing. That's because blocking based upon lists isn't what was tested.

Level 42

Also, I do not trust Checkpoint either way. I assume uBlock did poorly because it simply depends on lists and really only checks TLD, not actual malware activity so it's probably useless in that respect.

uBlock Origin is NOT an "ad blocker": it is a wide-spectrum blocker -- which happens to be able to function as a mere "ad blocker". The default behavior of uBlock Origin when newly installed is to blockads, trackers and malware sites

gorhill/uBlock
I think people beleve that due to uBO installation they are protected and perhaps you know that some of them even disable filtering modules in installed AV to have "better" protection. uBO have gained milions of users but maybe few thousands know how good prepare this addon to work.

Level 42

Speaking of this.. A regional online news source I read 'requires' adblockers to be disabled to view it. Today I went to read the latest news, disabled adblocker, and Gryphon fired off on the website constantly. Big fan of layered security here.

509322

gorhill/uBlock
I think people beleve that due to uBO installation they are protected and perhaps you know that some of them even disable filtering modules in installed AV to have "better" protection. uBO have gained milions of users but maybe few thousands know how good prepare this addon to work.

uBO does not block malware downloads. That is what was tested. IP address\URL\web-content blocking was not tested.

The malicious file samples were obtained via honeypots and tested as a drive-by download from essentially private\non-public LAN IPs. It is explained in the test notes.

uBO will never succeed in drive-by download testing because it is merely a web-content blocker as Gorhill explains. It does not inspect any downloads whatsoever. It merely blocks IP\URL\scripts that are in a list.

Web content filtering is good for ad blocking, but for malicious site blocking it is only marginally effective. The only ones who think that malicious web content filtering is of utmost important are browser extension crazed security forum members.

It is so trivial to bypass blocking by what is in a list. Such blocking offers the equivalent of 1 in 100,000 protection.

Of course one can get much better protection out of uBO by configuring it for every single website, blocking javascript, third party scripts, etc, etc. However, only a minute number of people go through all the trouble because it is a major hassle.

We use cookies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.